808 

St3t 


Sleeves 

Teacliing  Composition 

through  Cultivation  of  Ideas 


CENTRAL  CIRCULATION  BOOKSTACKS 

The  person  charging  this  material  is  re- 
sponsible for  its  return  to  the  library  from 
which  it  was  borrowed  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 

Theft,  mutilation,  and  underlining  of  books  are  reasons 
for  disciplinary  action  and  may  result  in  dismissal  from 
the  University. 

TO  RENEW  CALL  TELEPHONE  CENTER,  333-8400 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS  LIBRARY  AT  URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 


When  renewing  by  phone,  write  new  due  date  below 


previous  due  date. 


L162 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/teachingcomposit00stee_0 


rEACHING  COMPOSITION 
THROUGH  THE 
CULTIVATION  OF  IDEAS 


A Plan  which  has  been  followed 
at  Columbia  with  great  success 


(1289) 


REPRESENTATIVE  ESSAYS 
IN  MODERN  THOUGHT 

A BASIS  FOR  COMPOSITION 


Edited  by  Harrison  Ross  Steeves,  A.M., 
Instructor  in  English,  Columbia  Univer- 
sity, and  Frank  Humphrey  Ristine, 
Ph.  D.,  Acting  Professor  of  English 
Literature,  Hamilton  College,  sometime 
Instructor  in  Columbia  University. 

55°  Pages-  Ready  in  January. 


AMERICAN  BOOK  COMPANY 


New  York  Cincinnati  Chicago 

Boston  Atlanta  San  Francisco  Seattle 


Reprinted  from  the  Educational  Review,  New  York,  June,  1912. 
Copyright,  1912,  by  Educational  Review  Publishing  Co. 


V 

THE  CULTIVATION  OF  IDEAS  IN  THE  COLLEGE 
WRITING  COURSE 

It  may  at  first  glance  seem  unnecessary  to  add  one  more 
to  the  many  pedagogical  expedients  of  our  academic  system, 
especially  when  the  addition  is  to  a branch  of  teaching  which 
has  in  the  past  borne  the  burden  of  much  theoretical  discus- 
sion. It  is  probably  not  unfair  to  say,  however,  that  no 
branch  of  academic  teaching  has  been  so  slightly  affected  by 
theories  or  programs — in  other  words  by  the  forces  of  swift 
but  possibly  uncertain  progress — as  has  collegiate  English. 
This  fact  may  be  traced,  it  seems,  to  two  causes;  in  the  first 
place,  to  the  traditionary  character  of  rhetoric  as  an  educa- 
tional discipline;  and  in  the  second  place,  to  the  fact  that 
rhetoric  is  regarded  as  one  aspect  of  the  study  of  the  mother 
tongue,  literary  study  presenting  the  other  aspect,  and  the 
resultant  fact  that  considerations  of  economy  in  time  and 
effort  on  the  part  of  teachers  trained  and  expected  to  deal  with 
both  sides  of  vernacular  study  have  developed  a stereotyped 
an  inelastic  combination  of  the  two  in  classroom  practise. 

These  two  conditions  have,  then,  developed  a conservatism 
toward  teaching  theory  in  rhetoric  which  at  least  obscures 
our  vision  of  the  truth — that  formal  rhetoric  is  a needlessly 
unedifying  subject,  and  that  the  assumed  relation  of  com- 
position to  literature,  in  that  both  are  aspects  of  writing,  is 
more  casual  and  less  intrinsically  logical  than  we  might  at 
first  analysis  be  induced  to  believe.  In  as  far  as  broad  ques- 
tions in  teaching  methods  in  English  are  nowadays  discust, 
however,  they  are  likely  to  deal  with  either  of  these  two  im- 
posing deficiencies  of  our  system;  to  call  up  two  questions: 
How  can  we  relieve  the  study  of  rhetoric  from  its  depressing 
formalism?  And  how  can  we  combine  the  teaching  of  com- 
position and  English  literature  with  the  least  ill  effect,  since 

84 1 546 


Educational  Review 


[June 


46 

considerations  of  time  economy,  departmental  organization, 
and  general  expediency  so  frequently  demand  that  the  two  be 
taught  simultaneously? 

These  questions  imply  the  existence  of  a fixt  attitude  of 
mind  on  both  points,  an  assumption  that  the  teaching  of 
English  in  required  courses  presents  at  the  best  a dilemma 
of  partially  inadequate  methods.  Our  inquiry  into  the  prob- 
lem, therefore,  may  very  well  deal  in  the  first  place  with 
the  justice  of  the  assumption  that  our  choice  of  methods  and 
materials  is  so  narrowly  limited.  Must  we  regard  classroom 
work  in  formal  rhetoric  as  a necessity  in  modern  university 
teaching?  And  should  considerations  of  expediency  affect  our 
administrative  policies  when  observation  has  convinced  many 
teachers  of  reasonably  extended  experience  that  collateral 
work  in  composition  and  literary  study  breeds  some  thoroly 
baneful  results? 

With  reference  to  the  first  question  it  may  be  said,  at  least 
of  our  Eastern  universities,  that  entrance  into  the  freshman 
class  usually  implies  adequate  foundation  work  in  rhetoric. 
The  fact  that  this  is  not  unexceptionably  true  suggests  the 
currently  recognized  necessity  of  subdividing  the  entering 
classes,  whenever  it  is  possible  to  do  so,  according  to  intelli- 
gence and  preparatory  fitness.  This  plan,  which  should  be 
put  into  execution  at  the  earliest  possible  moment,  is  not 
merely  advisable;  it  is,  under  the  present  conditions  of  forced 
preparatory  work  and  with  the  administrative  facilities  and 
large  teaching  forces  of  our  modern  departments,  practically 
mandatory.  With  this  division  of  the  entering  class  it  is  of 
course  apparent  that  some  few  students  must  make  up  in  an 
academic  course — whether  or  not  their  college  gives  them 
academic  credit  for  the  work — the  deficiencies  of  their  prepa- 
ration. In  this  minor  instance  the  problem  is  possibly  the 
high-school  problem  of  classroom  work  in  rhetoric,  and  the 
teacher’s  responsibility  as  to  method  is  that  of  finding  a way 
to  sugar-coat  the  pill.  For  the  rest  of  the  class  one  thing 
is  certain:  they  are  to  continue  writing  for  another  year. 
What  are  they  to  write  about  ? And  how  are  they  to  receive 
the  theoretical  side  of  their  training? 


47 


igi2\  Ideas  in  the  college  writing  course 

The  latter  question  is  solved  in  most  of  our  universities 
by  the  system  of  individual  consultations.  In  a subject  where 
so  much  of  the  result  is  dependent  upon  the  individual  re- 
sponse, and  where  individual  problems  are  really  very  seldom, 
at  this  stage  of  training,  collective  problems,  it  seems  inevitable 
that  questions  of  special  principles  should  be  taken  up  with 
each  student  separately.  This  is  so  generally  the  custom 
today  that  it  does  not  require  a special  plea.  The  former 
question,  however:  What  are  they  to  write  about?  is  em- 
phatically one  which  needs  a rational  answer.  In  attempting 
an  answer,  we  return  to  our  first  statement  of  conditions. 
One  group  of  teachers  favors  subjects  from  the  common 
experience  of  the  writer.  Another  group  recognizes  the  force 
of  the  argument  of  departmental  convenience  and  kills  two 
birds  with  one  stone  by  basing  the  course  upon  literary 
selections. 

When  subjects  are  chosen  from  the  common  experience 
of  the  writer,  we  have  at  least  one  obvious  working  advantage : 
the  approach  to  the  work  is  not  wholly  perfunctory.  On  the 
other  hand,  if  the  student  is  not  asked  to  go  outside  of  his 
own  experience,  his  rhetorical  study  is  only  correcting  his 
ineptitude  in  matters  of  form  and  style,  and  is  not  producing 
nor  encouraging  intellectual  expansion.  Work  conducted  on 
this  line  is  easier  both  for  the  teacher  and  the  student,  and 
creates  for  this  reason  a state  of  mutual  satisfaction  which  is 
frequently  taken  as  evidence  of  success  in  the  choice  of 
material.  But  signs  of  easy  receptivity  on  the  part  of  the 
student  should  in  most  cases  lead  the  teacher  to  sincere  inquiry 
as  to  whether  he  is  not  offering  too  many  concessions  to  un- 
productive preference.  In  the  second  place,  it  is  probably 
true  that  none  of  the  subjects  of  this  familiar  province  are 
more  than  superficially  interesting  to  the  majority  of  students. 
Subjects  of  athletic,  social,  or  even  curricular  interest,  for 
example,  probably  do  not  actually  appeal  to  majorities,  as 
we  are  usually  inclined  to  assume  they  do.  What  may  be 
said  for  this  group  of  subjects  is  that  they  encourage  in- 
dividuality— but  an  ingrowing  individuality,  not  one  that 
correlates  experience  with  knowledge,  or  which  harmonizes  it 


Educational  Review 


48 


[June 


with  the  information  and  the  views  that  are  in  the  process 
of  forming  the  cultural  background. 

— — The  objections  to  the  project  of  combining  literary  study 
with  work  in  composition  are  very  weighty;  both  aspects  of 
the  work  are  open  to  criticism.  The  objection  to  the  method 
as  one  of  deliberate  choice  is  that  it  abuses  literature  by  sub- 
jecting it  to  a purpose  for  which  it  does  not  exist,  and,  pos- 
sibly, that  it  upholds  an  unpractical  and  discouraging  esthetic 
ideal  in  composition.  The  plea  which  seems  to  justify,  for 
the  moment,  this  combination  is,  as  I have  suggested,  that 
of  expediency.  Our  high-school  departments  are  almost  in- 
variably, and  our  collegiate  departments  very  frequently,  so 
organized  that  the  teaching  of  the  two  subjects  in  a single 
course  effects  a saving  in  time  and  effort  for  both  teacher 
and  student.  But  the  only  pedagogical  assumption  that  can 
tolerate  this  artificial  relationship  in  practise  is  that  education 
consists  in  absorbing  the  greatest  amount  of  concrete  informa- 
tion in  the  least  possible  time.  From  the  standpoint  of  results 
in  composition,  then,  the  course  is  ineffective,  for  the  simple 
reason  that  assigned  topics  confined  to  the  literary  field  tax 
the  intelligence  and  limit  the  mental  freedom  of  the  student. 
But  viewed  from  the  standpoint  of  effect  upon  literary  appre- 
ciation, there  can  scarcely  be  two  opinions.  Both  students  and 
teachers  in  large  numbers  view  the  results  as  little  short  of 
calamitous.  The  best  illustration  of  the  case  can  be  found 
in  the  attitude  of  entering  college  students  toward  the  books 
which  have  been  prescribed  for  college  entrance  study — and 
which  have  been  made  continuously  the  basis  of  work  in 
composition.  These  students  leave  such  initially  impressive 
works  as  Milton’s  minor  poems  and  Burke’s  Speech  on  con- 
dition with  a feeling  bordering  on  absolute  hatred;  and 
such  a condition  has  forced  more  than  one  thoughtful  teacher 
of  literature  to  begin  work  with  entering  students  by  intro- 
ducing literary  antidotes,  such  as  the  Ingoldsby  legends,  and 
Cellini’s  Autobiography,  to  counteract  the  effect  of  this  ill- 
administered  dose  of  “ good  literature.” 

If,  then,  we  continue,  as  I hope  we  shall,  in  the  belief  that 
a required  course  in  composition  should  constitute  part  of 


49 


1912]  Ideas  in  the  college  writing  course 

the  freshman’s  work,  we  are  confronted  with  the  need  of 
finding,  if  possible,  a subject-matter  less  ineffective  and  less 
inutile  than  either  of  the  fields  so  far  discust  and  so  generally 
accepted.  We  have  already  referred  to  the  concession  to  per- 
sonal interest  that  has  led  us  to  experiment  with  the  subject 
“ from  personal  experience.”  It  is  in  the  direction  of  this 
idea  that  we  should  seek  educational  salvation,  for  it  recog- 
nizes the  fact  that  the  first  aim  of  composition  should  be 
to  produce  self-expression.  The  weakness  of  all  other 
approaches  to  the  field  of  material  for  composition  lies  in 
their  failure  to  make  writing  a matter  of  intrinsically  per- 
sonal concern;  for  if  the  subjects  are  not  within  the  realm  of  a 
student’s  vital  interest,  he  must  perforce  regard  writing  itself 
as  a purely  external  thing — an  exercise  of  what  is  for  him 
pedantic  and  frequently  imitative  ingenuity.  The  subject 
“ from  personal  experience  ” as  we  have  been  in  the  custom 
of  using  it,  however,  possesses  in  itself  a very  radical  weak- 
ness: its  title  defines  it  as  reminiscential.  It  is  not  progres- 
sive. For  everything  except  the  cultivation  of  formal  expres- 
sion it  leaves  the  student  exactly  where  he  was  before  he  began 
writing.  The  student  sees  the  instructor  descending  to  his 
plane  of  interest  and  intelligence;  and  he  either — if  he  is  lazy 
— thanks  the  instructor  for  sparing  him  the  effort  of  thought, 
or — if  he  is  serious — vaguely  criticises  this  descent  as  some- 
thing undignified  for  the  instructor,  and  not  wholly  fair  to 
himself. 

After  all,  then,  when  we  draw  our  materials  from  the 
domain  of  private  interests,  are  we  in  actuality,  or  only  in 
appearance,  encouraging  self-expression?  We  may  be  wholly 
wrong  in  imagining  that  the  college  man  thinks  of  himself 
first  as  a paddler  of  canoes  or  a dancer  of  dances.  Our  first 
appeal  to  him  should  be  based  upon  the  interest  implied  in  the 
fact  that  he  is  a college  student,  one  of  the  republic  of  thought. 
He  is  conscious  of  this,  and  his  consciousness  breeds  questions. 
He  is  consumed  with  one  problem,  if  he  is  serious.  He  should 
face  that  problem  if  he  is  not  innately  serious.  What  is  he 
with  relation  to  himself,  and  to  society,  and  to  all  that  has 
been  and  is  defined  in  the  name  of  God,  and  to  that,  for  him, 


50  Educational  Review  [June 

mystic  culture,  which  he  knows  he  has  come  to  college  to 
partake  of,  but  of  the  essence  of  which  he  knows  little,  for 
opportunity  has  been  refused  him,  and  of  the  meaning  of 
which  he  comprehends  little,  for  its  Godlike  remoteness 
abashes  him  on  the  threshold  of  inquiry? 

This  domain  of  interest,  which  recognizes  the  student’s 
critical  concern  with  personal  and  social  problems,  and  which 
endeavors  at  least  to  orient  him  in  the  fields  of  intellectual 
occupation,  which  he  frequently  knows  only  as  names,  and 
sometimes  not  even  as  names,  has  been  tested  in  the  required 
freshman  course  in  English  at  Columbia  in  a tentative  way 
for  as  much  as  five  years,  and  in  a more  final  method  for 
two  years.  The  main  features  of  the  present  form  of  the 
course  are  substantially  these. 

In  the  first  term  a series  of  readings  are  given  which  do 
not  differ  in  a very  marked  way  from  the  type  of  reading 
to  which  the  student  has  been  accustomed  in  his  earlier  train- 
ing, but  which  have  casual  but  important  connections  with 
some  of  the  problems  suggested.  These  introductory  read- 
ings— take  a life  by  Plutarch  for  example,  such  as  the  life 
of  Pericles  or  of  Cimon — or  a biblical  selection  such  as  the 
Book  of  Ruth — introduce  vital  questions  of  this  kind.  What 
is  history;  is  it  a record  of  fact,  or  is  it  a retrospective  view 
of  life?  Does  the  work,  which  purports  to  be  historical, 
concern  itself  so  much  with  historical  facts  as  it  does  with 
a moral  point  of  view?  And  what,  then,  is  morality;  is  it 
a permanent  and  Heaven-given  light,  or  an  expression  of 
social  expediency  evolved  from  racial  experience?  And  if 
morality  is  “ evolved,”  what  is  evolution,  as  it  touches  not 
only  man’s  spiritual  existence,  but  his  physical  existence? 
And  with  the  problem  of  evolution  come  the  more  general 
problems  of  biological  science,  their  relation  to  traditional 
religion  and  to  philosophies.  No  discussion  of  a single  work 
should,  of  course,  be  allowed  to  run  with  the  diffuseness  that 
is  suggested  here  merely  to  show  the  complexity  of  intel- 
lectual relationships  in  a single  suggestive  piece  of  writing. 
Every  work  utilized  should  have  bearing  upon  a single  more 
or  less  specific  domain  of  inquiry,  or  discussion  upon  it 


51 


1912]  Ideas  in  the  college  writing  course 

should  at  least  be  restricted  to  the  definition  of  a simple  but 
broad  conception.  The  aim  is,  in  short,  to  develop  a defini- 
tional approach  to  the  field  of  ideas.  With  this  program,  in 
which  with  remarkable  frequency  one  will  find  incandescent 
interest  in  a single  hitherto  obscure  conception  running  thru 
an  entire  hour,  we  find  gradually  developing  a consciousness 
of  the  efficiency  of  mental  processes,  and  a polarization  of 
interest  in  knowledge  as  it  affects  life  in  all  its  personal  and 
social  bearings.  It  is  probably  correct  to  say  that  the  major- 
ity of  students  are  not  aware  that  they  have  been  acquiring 
the  methods  of  science,  for  the  disciplinary  function  of  the 
course  is  not  exhibited  to  them  in  this  first  stage.  In  fact, 
the  typical  remark  of  the  student  is  one  of  surprize  that  so 
thoroly  conscious  an  intellectual  expansion  should  be  secured 
at  the  expense  of  so  little  formulative  effort.  But  what  the 
student  has  gained  is  an  effective  force  whether  conscious  or 
unconscious — that  is,  intellectual  curiosity. 

In  the  second  term,  however,  the  course  is  made  very  much 
more  concrete.  The  readings  for  this  term  are  in  the  main 
monuments  of  intellectual  progress.  Here  the  student  is  in- 
troduced specifically  to  the  imposing  questions  of  life  in  their 
modern  aspects.  The  field  of  choice  for  this  purpose  is  of 
course  almost  limitlessly  large;  and  what  is  to  be  chosen 
depends  at  once  upon  the  mental  outlook  of  the  teacher  and 
the  mental  tendencies  of  the  students  as  a body.  A suggestion 
or  two,  however,  may  indicate  some  of  the  possibilities  for 
this  part  of  the  course. 

It  has  been  found  useful,  to  begin  with,  to  prescribe  reading 
in  paired  viewpoints  upon  various  questions.  For  instance, 
the  question  as  to  how  far  and  in  what  way  scientific  method 
should  affect  religious  belief  is  one  of  the  most  patent  and 
most  important,  for  the  great  number,  to  develop  from  the 
introductory  work.  In  concrete  presentation  this  question 
may  be  dealt  with  from  the  strictly  rationalistic  standpoint  of 
W.  K.  Clifford’s  essay,  The  ethics  of  belief ; and  Clifford’s 
essay  may  then  be  compared  with  William  James’s  address 
on  The  will  to  believe , which  decries  the  judgment  of  a pas- 
sional experience  by  the  methods  of  logic.  A similar  con- 


52 


Educational  Review 


[June 


trast  of  the  skeptic  and  poetic  attitudes  toward  the  idea  of 
immortality  may  be  found  in  Tyndall’s  Belfast  address — so 
vastly  suggestive,  too,  for  the  whole  field  of  scientific  thought 
— and  Tennyson’s  In  memoriam  or  John  Fiske’s  Life  ever- 
lasting. Huxley  offers  an  extraordinary  amount  of  really 
fascinating  reading  on  modern  scientific  methods  and  con- 
clusions. Fundamental  conceptions  of  modern  political  theory 
may  be  illustrated  by  Mill’s  On  liberty , and  Morley’s  Com- 
promise. The  special  problems  of  modern  politics  could  be 
viewed  in  a writer  of  the  real  literary  value  of  W.  H.  Mallock, 
and  in  typical  documents  of  a more  radical  trend,  since  it  is 
frequently  advisable  to  meet  radicalism  on  its  own  ground. 
The  humanitarian  side  of  sociological  and  economic  questions 
may  be  found  in  essays  such  as  Tolstoy’s  A first  step  and 
Ruskin’s  lecture  on  Work.  The  field  extends  itself  obviously 
into  the  work  of  Arnold,  Plato,  Morris,  Spencer,  Paulsen,  and 
even  moderns  of  the  stimulative  value  of  Professor  Robinson, 
Professor  Santayana,  Mr.  Balfour,  or  Mr.  Frederic  Harrison. 
Choice  should  be  limited  only  by  the  necessity  of  adhering  to 
writings  which  possess  an  essential  irritancy. 

The  question  of  a method  of  handling  this  material  of 
composition  is  again  one  to  be  resolved  by  the  teacher.  The 
practise  that  has  developed  in  our  experiment  with  the  course 
requires  an  impromptu  theme,  upon  a prescribed  topic,  to 
be  written  during  one  of  the  three  weekly  meetings.  The 
other  two  meetings  are  given  over  to  discussion  in  which 
consideration  of  the  broader  bearings  of  the  subject  is  en- 
couraged, not  represt.  In  short,  classroom  treatment  of 
the  material — in  classes  confined  to  about  twenty  members 
each — attempts  to  adjust  the  Socratic  method  to  the  peda- 
gogical formulas  of  the  modern  university. 

I have  in  this  scheme  defined  what  I believe  to  be  an  im- 
posing modern  academic  responsibility.  In  an  age  of  such 
striking  expansion  and  diversity  in  the  field  of  knowledge,  it 
seems  incumbent  on  the  university  to  present  to  the  student, 
in  his  earliest  years  as  a student,  and  with  careful  avoidance 
of  categorical  formalism,  a survey  of  his  field.  This  survey 
is  sometimes  given  in  required  or  elective  courses  in  philoso' 


53 


i912 ] Ideas  in  the  college  writing  course 

phy;  but  these  are  generally  reached  too  late  to  be  of  the 
service  that  they  might  be  in  the  first  year  of  study;  and  in 
addition,  their  method  of  dealing  with  this  material  is  in 
general,  I think,  more  formal  and  less  elastic.  It  is,  of  course, 
not  inevitably  the  province  of  an  English  department  to  serve 
this  purpose;  but  there  is  no  very  clear  reason  why  it  should 
not  do  so  in  a composition  course.  A departmental  objection 
to  the  plan  might  be  that  in  adopting  this  method  the  de- 
partment abandons  in  its  required  course  the  esthetic  study 
of  literature.  In  answer  to  this  objection,  however,  we  have 
the  judgment  of  many  teachers  that  this  point  of  approach 
to  literary  study  has  been  sorely  over-used  in  the  teaching 
of  immature  students.  Furthermore,  the  minority  to  which 
this  approach  appeals  can  be  satisfied  thruout  their  entire 
college  residence  in  elective  courses  in  literature.  On  the 
other  hand,  as  between  the  broader  utility  and  cultural  value 
of  a course  of  this  scope,  and  the  restricted  aim  of  one  in 
literary  appreciation,  the  commendable  modern  tendency  to 
correlate  the  work  of  the  various  academic  departments  un- 
questionably favors  the  former. 

A second  objection  may  be  offered  that  no  matter  how 
attractive  or  how  generally  advisable  a course  of  this  purpose 
may  be,  the  English  department  leaves  its  peculiar  province 
if  it  deals  broadly  with  what  most  students  of  letters  would 
be  inclined  to  call  non-literary  material.  But  if  we  look  back 
into  the  history  of  the  academic  study  of  English  we  discover 
a time  when  the  command  of  the  mother  tongue  was  not  a 
separate  subject  of  study,  but  an  aspect  of  general  culture; 
and  it  was  supposed  to  be  derived  from  the  agents  and  the 
agencies  of  culture — the  teachers  and  the  curriculum.  It 
was  not  only  supposed  to  be  thus  derived,  but  it  was  in  very 
fact  so  derived,  for  the  teachers  in  all  branches  of  study  made 
it  their  concern  that  it  should  be.  When  English  became 
separated  as  a subject  for  special  study,  however,  it  lost  its 
relationship  to  the  general  domain  of  ideas  and  affairs,  and 
concerned  itself  with  itself — as,  indeed,  sister-subjects  were 
doing  in  a day  of  intensive  specialization.  The  result  is  that 
in  the  main  we  have  narrowed  our  conception  of  vernacular 


54 


Educational  Review 


study  to  the  esthetic  aspects  of  both  literature  and  composition. 
We  no  longer  speak  of  literature  in  the  catholic  sense  of 
Bacon,  but  we  confine  it  in  the  trammels  of  De  Quincey’ . 
specious  distinction.  Our  preoccupation  with  the  “ literature 
of  power  ” has  encouraged  an  indifference  to  the  “ literatur  * 
of  knowledge  ” — that  is,  strictly  as  literature.  As  a result 
our  test  of  spirituality  in  literature  is  almost  wholly  that 
esthetic  quality,  and  we  are  today  rather  curiously  deaf  o 
the  appeal  of  substance.  The  suggested  extension  of  c-r 
course  in  writing  to  a broader  literary  realm  is  not,  th 
one  of  radical  change,  but  rather  a return  to  the  educatio  \ 
view  which  accepted  language  as  the  key  of  thought,  not 
the  exercise  of  formal  or  imitative  artistry. 

Our  plan  may  seem  to  sound  of  academic  pretentiousne  , 
it  may  seem  at  first  glance  to  be  a hard  test  of  the  studei  ; 
acquisitive  capacity  and  interest;  and  it  may  be  conceived 
even  taxing  the  cultural  equipment  of  many  instructors 
English.  Whether  the  plan  is  really  over-pretentious  or 
depends,  I believe,  on  the  outlook  of  the  instructor  and 
mentality  and  maturity  of  the  students.  In  the  Colun 
department  the  experiment  has  apparently  not  overshot 
purposes  of  a writing  course  or  the  capacities  of  aver  , 
freshmen.  On  the  second  point,  we  have  been  led  to  bel: 
from  observation,  and  from  the  frank  judgments  of  stude 
both  serious  and  frivolous,  brilliant  and  dull,  that  this  mate 
is  fresh,  illuminating,  interesting,  and  emphatically  benefi 
to  a greater  majority  of  students  than  any  of  our  course  ^ i 
composition  of  either  of  the  regular  types  have  ever  bel 
appealed  to.  As  to  the  last  point  of  objection  which 
been  suggested,  if  the  college  instructor  finds  the  mate  i 
beyond  his  depth,  is  not  this  in  itself  a convincing  perse 
argument  in  favor  of  the  “ course  in  ideas  ”? 

Harrison  Ross  Steeves 


Columbia  University 


